United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

CONLEY F. MONK, JR., JAMES BRIGGS, TOM 

COYNE, WILLIAM DOLPHIN, JIMMIE HUDSON, 

LYLE OBIE, STANLEY STOKES, WILLIAM 

JEROME WOOD, II,

Petitioners-Appellants

v.

ROBERT WILKIE, SECRETARY OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS,

Respondent-Appellee

______________________

2019-1094

______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in No. 15-1280, Chief Judge Margaret C. 

Bartley, Judge Coral Wong Pietsch, Judge William S. 

Greenberg, Judge Michael P. Allen, Judge Amanda L. Meredith, Judge Joseph L. Toth, Senior Judge Robert N. Davis, 

Senior Judge Mary J. Schoelen.

______________________

Decided: October 20, 2020

______________________

LYNN K. NEUNER, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, LLP, 

New York, NY, argued for petitioners-appellants. Also argued by ARJUN MODY, Jerome N. Frank Legal Services Organization, Yale Law School, New Haven, CT. Also 

represented by MICHAEL JOEL WISHNIE, JADE FORD, RENEE 

Case: 19-1094 Document: 92 Page: 1 Filed: 10/20/2020
2 MONK v. WILKIE

A. BURBANK. 

 MARTIN F. HOCKEY, JR., Commercial Litigation Branch, 

Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued for respondent-appellee. Also represented by JEFFREY B. CLARK, ROBERT EDWARD KIRSCHMAN,

JR.; BRIAN D. GRIFFIN, JONATHAN KRISCH, Office of General 

Counsel, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, 

Washington, DC.

 BENJAMIN C. BLOCK, Covington & Burling LLP, Washington, DC, for amicus curiae National Veterans Legal Services Program. Also represented by ISAAC CHAIM BELFER,

POOJA SHAH KOTHARI, ROBERT TYLER SANBORN; JORDAN 

JOACHIM, New York, NY; BARTON F. STICHMAN, National 

Veterans Legal Services Program, Washington, DC. 

 JONATHAN FREIMAN, Wiggin and Dana LLP, New Haven, CT, for amici curiae Will A. Gunn, Mary Lou Keener. 

 JASON L. LICHTMAN, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, New York, NY, for amici curiae Pamela Bookman, Maureen Carroll, Sergio J. Campos, Brooke Coleman, 

Robin Effron, Deborah Hensler, Helen Hershkoff, Alexandra D. Lahav, David Marcus, Jerry L. Mashaw, Elizabeth 

G. Porter, Briana Rosenbaum, Judith Resnik, Michael D. 

Sant'Ambrogio, Elizabeth M. Schneider, Joanna C. 

Schwartz, Shirin Sinnar, Adam Zimmerman. 

 ANGELA K. DRAKE, Veterans Clinic, University of Missouri School of Law, Columbia, MO, for amicus curiae National Law School Veterans Clinic Consortium. Also 

represented by STACEY-RAE SIMCOX, Faculty Office, Stetson University College of Law, Gulfport, FL. 

 ______________________

Before NEWMAN, LOURIE, and REYNA, Circuit Judges.

Case: 19-1094 Document: 92 Page: 2 Filed: 10/20/2020
MONK v. WILKIE 3

Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge NEWMAN.

Additional views filed by Circuit Judge REYNA.

NEWMAN, Circuit Judge.

Petitioners Conley F. Monk, Jr. and seven other veterans petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”), requesting class action 

certification for the class of veterans whose disability

claims had not been resolved by the Board of Veterans Appeals (“BVA” or “Board”) within one year of the filing of a 

Notice of Disagreement (“NOD”). Petitioners define the 

proposed class as:

[I]ndividuals who . . . applied for and [were] denied 

VA [Veterans Affairs] disability benefits, in whole 

or in part; [and] timely filed an NOD upon denial 

of an original, reopened, or remanded claim; [and] 

the VA has failed to render a decision on the pending appeal within twelve (12) months of the date of 

the NOD.

Amended Petition at 7 (Dec. 20, 2017) (ECF No. 57). Petitioners request judicial action to compel the Secretary of 

Veterans Affairs to decide all pending appeals within one 

year of receipt of a timely NOD. Petitioners stated that the 

proposed class constituted at least 470,000 claimants, and 

was increasing.

The Veterans Court took the matter en banc, and requested Petitioners to separate or limit the requested class 

action into issues that meet the “commonality” standard of 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2):

A class action may be maintained if . . . the party 

opposing the class has acted or refused to act on 

grounds that apply generally to the class, so that 

final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory 

relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole.

Case: 19-1094 Document: 92 Page: 3 Filed: 10/20/2020
4 MONK v. WILKIE

Petitioners declined to limit the requested class action, 

stating that “systemic delay” exists in the VA claims system, and broad judicial remedy is required. The Veterans 

Court then denied the requested class certification,1 stating that “[t]he relief the petitioners seek does not satisfy 

Rule 23(b)(2)’s standard as there is no single injunction 

that provides relief to the class as a whole.” Vet. Ct. Op. at 

181. This appeal followed.

DISCUSSION

While this case was pending in the Veterans Court,

congressional hearings were held in 2016 and 2017 concerning the delays in VA claim processing. Legislation was

enacted on August 23, 2017, called the Veterans Appeals 

Improvement and Modernization Act of 2017, Pub. L. No. 

115-55, § 2(x), 131 Stat. 1105 (2017) (“AMA” or “VAIMA”). 

In their appeal to this court, Petitioners acknowledged this 

legislation but did not discuss its impact on their concerns. 

We requested further briefing, and Petitioners, the government, and amicus curiae National Law School Veterans 

Clinic Consortium filed additional briefs. Petitioners and 

the amicus state that important problems remain; the government reports progress and optimism.

A. The AMA Enactment in 2017

Before the AMA, the system for processing veterans’

disability claims required multiple steps, each of which 

was subject to delays, starting with the procedures in the 

Regional Office, then the filing of the NOD, then the issuance of a Statement of the Case (“SOC”), then the filing of 

VA Form 9, then the appeal certification and transfer to 

the BVA, then the submission of evidence, then a hearing, 

often warranting remand and additional evidence and 

1 Monk v. Wilkie, 30 Vet. App. 167 (2018) (“Vet. Ct. 

Op.”).

Case: 19-1094 Document: 92 Page: 4 Filed: 10/20/2020
MONK v. WILKIE 5

another hearing, and eventually the decision of the BVA 

and a possible reconsideration decision. The average completion time is “nearly five years” according to the government, and seven years according to Petitioners. Petitioners 

state that delay of ten years is not unusual.

The AMA made several changes in VA procedures, and 

eliminated or simplified the steps after filing of the NOD. 

As described by the government:

Rather than forcing all claimants through one long 

queue, the AMA allows claimants to choose an appellate path—(1) higher-level review, (2) supplemental claim, (3) board review with a hearing and 

opportunity to submit additional evidence, 

(4) board review without a hearing, but with an opportunity to submit additional evidence, or 

(5) board review without a hearing or additional 

evidence—in accord with their priorities for their 

particular appeal. See 38 U.S.C. §§ 5104C(a)(1), 

7105(b)(3).

Gov’t Supp. Br. 2–3. The government states that the AMA 

is structured to avoid the major sources of delay that were 

inherent in the legacy system:2

For instance, instead of the legacy system’s continual open record and continual duty to assist—

which cause the board to reintroduce thousands of 

cases reaching the end of the appeals process back 

into the appellate queue for additional development every year—the AMA provides discrete 

2 The pre-AMA appeals process is called the “legacy 

system.” The AMA applies to claims that receive an initial 

decision after February 19, 2019. 38 C.F.R. § 19.2. Veterans within the legacy system are authorized to “opt in” to 

the AMA system.

Case: 19-1094 Document: 92 Page: 5 Filed: 10/20/2020
6 MONK v. WILKIE

periods for assistance and evidence submission, 

with effective date protections for the claimant. 

Compare 38 U.S.C. §§ 5103A, 7105(e) (2016), with

38 U.S.C. §§ 5103A(e), 5104B(d), 5110(a)(2), 7113 

(2020).

Gov’t Supp. Br. 3 (internal citation omitted). The government also explains that instead of waiting for preparation 

and issuance of the SOC and then having to file an appeal 

that must be certified and transferred to the BVA, claimants can file their NOD directly with the BVA. Id. at 3–4.

The amicus reports that “the average length of time between the filing of an appeal at the Regional Office and the 

Board’s disposition of the appeal was more than three 

years—1,273 days—for legacy claims.” Amicus Supp. Br. 2 

(citing Dep’t of Veterans Aff. Board of Veterans Appeals, 

Annual Report Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 25) (“Annual Report 

FY 2019”) (emphasis omitted). The government summarizes: “Given that the SOC, certification, and board docketing stages for legacy appeals take 1,077 days on average to 

complete, the AMA’s authorization for direct NOD filings 

with the board has the potential to remove up to 1,077 days 

of processing time for the average claimant.” Gov’t Supp. 

Br. 4 (citing Annual Report FY 2019 at 25). The government states:

This careful structuring of the AMA system has, at 

least so far, vastly improved appeal processing 

times. As of May 31, 2020, AMA claimants who appeal to the board are receiving decisions, on average, in 229 days. See Appeals Modernization Act 

Reporting, May 2020 Monthly Report, Part 1 –

AMA (E, G, J), row 7, column C.

Gov’t Supp. Br. 4.

B. The Proposed Class Action

Petitioners continue to urge that judicial intervention 

is required, for the AMA does not apply to legacy appeals, 

Case: 19-1094 Document: 92 Page: 6 Filed: 10/20/2020
MONK v. WILKIE 7

and over 200,000 legacy appeals remain pending. The government states that the AMA provides that legacy claimants may “opt in” to the AMA system. The government 

states that “virtually every single putative class member 

has had an opportunity to leave the broken legacy appeals 

system and enter an AMA system that ‘expedite[s] VA’s appeals process’ while also ‘protecting veterans’ due process 

rights.’ H.R. Rep. 115-135, at 2. Some have declined that 

opportunity, and that is their right.” Gov’t Supp. Br. 6

(alteration in original). The government states that the VA 

sent a letter to almost every legacy claimant to inform them 

of the legislative change and to provide instructions concerning procedures, id., and Petitioners report that only 

19.2% of the legacy claimants opted in to the AMA in the 

first and second quarters of FY 2019. Pet’r Supp. Br. 11.

The government states that “the AMA has been fully 

operational for 17 months; and, between RAMP [Rapid Appeals Modernization Program] and the AMA’s opt-in, virtually every putative class member has had an opportunity 

to take advantage of Congress’s chosen remedy.” Gov’t 

Supp. Br. 7. The government reports the hiring of 605 additional appeal adjudicators in FY 2019, and states that:

“While the original briefs in this case referred to 470,000 

pending appeals, the latest available data reflects that 

217,918 legacy appeals remain pending: 141,783 appeals

that have not yet received a board decision and 76,135 appeals remanded by the board,” and “[b]ased on current projections, all legacy appeals will receive a board decision by 

December 2022.” Id. at 12 n.10 (citing U.S. Dep’t of Veterans Aff., Periodic Progress Report on Appeals 4–5, 29 (Feb. 

2020 Update) and Dep’t of Veterans Aff., Appeals Modernization Act Reporting: May 2020 Monthly Report).3

3 The AMA requires the VA to provide regular updates on appeal processing, including resource and staffing 

levels, productivity and timeline projections, and 

Case: 19-1094 Document: 92 Page: 7 Filed: 10/20/2020
8 MONK v. WILKIE

However, Petitioners continue to press for a class action for the purpose of setting a deadline for legacy appeals, 

arguing that the AMA’s provision to opt-in is inadequate,

and judicial intervention is essential. Pet’r Supp. Br. 10–

12 (“For veterans already suffering lengthy delays, opting 

in to the AMA, an untested and unfamiliar system, risked 

even further costs and uncertainties.”).

The government states that the concept of a fixed period was considered at the legislative hearings, and that 

the consensus was that a deadline system was not a preferable solution, in view of the variety of veterans’ disability 

claims and individual needs and procedures.

On review of the information provided by both sides,

we share the view stated in Sugrue v. Derwinski, 26 F.3d 

8, 12–13 (2d Cir. 1994), that when Congress has “carefully 

crafted” a “comprehensive remedial structure,” that structure warrants evaluation in practice, before judicial intervention should be contemplated.

C. The Question of “Commonality”

The Veterans Court observed that the rule of “commonality” requires that a proposed class action presents a common question that is capable of a common legal answer. 

See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 350–52 

(2011). See also Martin v. O’Rourke, 891 F.3d 1338, 1345–

47 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“unreasonable delay” inquiry must examine, inter alia, the context of the delay, the particular 

agency action at issue, and the effect of delay on a particular veteran).

information on opt-ins. Data are publicly reported, e.g., 

U.S. Dep’t of Veterans Aff., Periodic Progress Report on Appeals (Feb. 2020 Update), https://benefits.va.gov/benefits/docs/appeals-report-202002.pdf.

Case: 19-1094 Document: 92 Page: 8 Filed: 10/20/2020
MONK v. WILKIE 9

Petitioners did not respond to the Veterans Court’s request for further definition in search of commonality. And 

Petitioners do not elaborate on the remedy they seek for 

legacy claimants, other than a one-year deadline. The amicus states that “it is too early to tell if the AMA provides 

veterans with accurate and timely decisions,” Amicus

Supp. Br. 1, and therefore the courts must intervene in the 

legacy system for veterans who have not opted into the 

AMA. The amicus mentions the government’s projection 

that all legacy appeals will be resolved by the end of 2022, 

and is skeptical concerning whether this goal can be 

achieved. Thus the amicus urges that judicial intervention 

by class action is needed. Id. at 2, 10. The amicus, like 

Petitioners, suggests no remedy other than imposition of a 

judicially imposed one-year deadline.

The amicus presented the experience of a veteran’s 

clinic in attempting to proceed under an opt-in election, 

showing repeated VA errors in administration of the purportedly more efficient AMA procedures. This distressing 

case history does not provide reassurance, whether it is an 

isolated example, or widespread. However, neither does 

this information enlighten the commonality concern that 

troubled the Veterans Court.

The Veterans Court held that there was inadequate 

specificity of issues on which the court could reasonably 

proceed by class action. Petitioners ask this court to hold 

that the proposed class of all legacy claimants “satisfies 

commonality under Rule 23(a)(2),” Pet’r Supp. Br. 12. Petitioners fault the Veterans Court for not allowing them to 

amend their petition after the en banc argument, in order

to “move for certification of subclasses as necessary.” Pet’r. 

Supp. Br. 6 n.3. However, we are not advised as to further 

analysis of what legal remedy is sought for any subclass.

We agree with the Veterans Court that Petitioners 

have not met the commonality requirement, or suggested a 

path to meeting this requirement. Petitioners have not 

Case: 19-1094 Document: 92 Page: 9 Filed: 10/20/2020
10 MONK v. WILKIE

demonstrated Veterans Court error or shown a reasonable

basis for remand.

AFFIRMED

Each party shall bear its costs.

Case: 19-1094 Document: 92 Page: 10 Filed: 10/20/2020
United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

CONLEY F. MONK, JR., JAMES BRIGGS, TOM 

COYNE, WILLIAM DOLPHIN, JIMMIE HUDSON, 

LYLE OBIE, STANLEY STOKES, WILLIAM 

JEROME WOOD, II,

Petitioners-Appellants

v.

ROBERT WILKIE, SECRETARY OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS,

Respondent-Appellee

______________________

2019-1094

______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in No. 15-1280, Chief Judge Margaret C. 

Bartley, Judge Coral Wong Pietsch, Judge William S. 

Greenberg, Judge Michael P. Allen, Judge Amanda L. Meredith, Judge Joseph L. Toth, Senior Judge Robert N. Davis, 

Senior Judge Mary J. Schoelen.

______________________

REYNA, Circuit Judge, additional views.

I am pleased to join my colleagues in the views expressed by Judge Newman in our majority opinion. I write 

separately to emphasize that while the proposed class does 

not meet the commonality requirement, class certification 

is available and should be afforded to veterans upon a 

showing of commonality. 

Case: 19-1094 Document: 92 Page: 11 Filed: 10/20/2020
2 MONK v. WILKIE

The VA concedes that veterans, “[w]hen they [appeal]—whether they know it or not—will enter into a process that takes years, sometimes decades, to complete . . .

jump[ing] through hoops, absorb[ing] dozens of letters, 

fill[ing] out confusing paperwork, and learn[ing] to live 

with waiting.” J.A. 466. This delay is unacceptable. In 

addition to learning to live with waiting, the nation’s veterans must carry the burden of compounding health and 

financial implications. While we note the recent attempts 

to reform the broken VA claims system, J.A. 467, the new 

process does not provide a remedy for the 200,000 veterans 

that have claims pending under the legacy system. The 

government asserts that “virtually every putative class 

member has had an opportunity to take advantage of Congress’s chosen remedy.” Gov’t Supp. Br. 7. But the AMA 

opt-in was optional, and veterans with claims pending under the legacy system were not required to switch to the 

new system in order to receive swift adjudication. In fact, 

Congress explicitly prohibited the AMA from taking effect 

until the VA could guarantee that legacy claims would be 

“timely addressed.” Gov’t Supp. Br. 9 n.9. The fact remains that veterans should not have to switch to the new 

system to expect and receive timely resolution of their 

claims. It remains to be seen whether the new AMA system will resolve these deeply troubling delays. But in the 

meantime, the availability of class certification to address 

such delays remains available and important as ever.

Case: 19-1094 Document: 92 Page: 12 Filed: 10/20/2020